Thursday, February 19, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Christian Filmmaker Befuddled Over The Relationship Between Media & Religion
In the synopsis, he name drops that the upcoming film features Harry Anderson.
The cinematographer reminds that Anderson, before his descent into obscurity, starred as the judge on the sitcom “Night Court”.
So if the truly sanctified believer is to refrain from these kinds of wordly entertainments, how is anyone in the listening audience even supposed to know what “Night Court” is?
Admittedly, I saw a few episodes of Night Court in my youth.
From what I remember, the comedy was heavy on innuendo,
I will confess I enjoy doubled-meaninged word play a little too enthusiastically at times.
However, I don't host a podcast insinuating that your daughter is going to end up being a lesbian if she's too infatuated from a literary or dramatic standpoint with the world of “Little House On The Prairie” as Generations Radio suggested some years back.
Are we to take away that it is acceptable to watch “Night Court” but we need to repent if we find “Hunger Games” to be an intriguing dystopian projection of the world to come in a few decades?
For this very same director that bragged about casting a former celebrity from “Night Court” insisted that it is not enough for a movie to be family friendly, wholesome, or make valid moral observations.
Rather, to be acceptable, a movie must deliberately push Christianity onto the viewer.
Christiano went on to lament how Christians don't get excited over Christian movies.
Sorry, but I don't plop down $10 for any movie where the characters do little more than sit around crying about their everyday feelings and common disappointments.
To be theater worthy in my opinion, considerable spectacle is needed such as some kind of mass battle, talking animals, robots, superheroes, space aliens, clashing wizards or spies.
Christiano further observed that someone couldn't remember what their pastor preached about a month ago but could recall details about “The Wizard of Oz” despite having not seen it in years.
Before heaping hellfire and damnation upon those that might respond similarly, a number of things need to be taken into consideration.
Firstly, how old are they now compared to when they first saw “The Wizard of Oz”?
So isn't that more of God's responsibility for how He allows the brain to decay overtime where it is often easier to recall things that happened to minutest detail 30 or 40 years ago but you can't for the life of you remember what you had for dinner last night?
Secondly, perhaps the blame should be placed more upon the pastor for lack of showmanship and presentation rather than upon the average Christian for failing to retain the intricate details.
For I am sure the next time that there are flying monkeys and dancing midgets in church that you are going to remember it.
Which brings the discussion to another very important point.
One goes to the movies precisely to see an out of the ordinary spectacle.
That is not the the case necessarily in regards to a church worship service.
Upon further consideration, what is retained from a sermon might not be all that different from what is retained from a film.
For example, unless one sees especially at a young age a particular film over and over again, does anyone really retain much beyond a memory of the basic plot usually?
As I approach middle age, sometimes I find I can't recall what happened the previous week on some of the dramas that I follow quite closely.
Thus, instead of condemning a congregation or group of random Christians if they can't elaborate the specifics of a single sermon, shouldn't the professional clergy be more pleased and concerned that those under their care recall the main points of the comprehensive Christian saga rather than the obtuse actions of a single Old Testament character with a name that defies pronunciation?
Along the lines of this criticism about the moviegoer longing for innovation and spectacle, Christiano lamented how movies never satisfy and people always want to see the next big blockbuster.
Let's apply that presupposition to other aspects of life one would otherwise consider wholesome, admirable, and desirable.
For example, according to this logic, shouldn't it be enough to go to church once and never have to go again to quench one's spiritual thirst?
If one's marriage is truly based upon love and not upon the titillation of fleshly desires, by Christiano's thinking, would a couple need to enjoy carnal relations more than once throughout the course of their entire marital union?
Media spectacle will never replace sermonic exposition as the primary didactic methodology through which concise doctrinal content is transmitted to the believer.
However, it often seems that certain Evangelical factions aren't that interested in making much use of these supplementary media formats to augment the learning experience.
In regards to the upcoming “AD” miniseries, the hosts of one program after remarking just moments before about the tendency of a number of Christians to stay in their own bubble, didn't really give much of a reason to avoid the production other than that its producer Roma Downey is a Roman Catholic with mystical New Age tendencies.
Wouldn't it have been better to wait and see if there are any factual errors in Downey's narrative rather than condemn the production on the basis of whatever errant peculiarities she might gravitate towards in the personal aspects of her devotional life?
After all, most conservative Evangelicals allow the King James Bible to stand on its own merits without the homosexual and Romanist proclivities of the monarch for which this translation of divine revelation is named allowed to detract from its literary, historical, or theological merits.
Like it or not, believers find themselves in a culture surrounded by media.
It is therefore imperative not only to figure out how the media can be used to disseminate the Christian worldview but to also understand where the methodologies of entertainment and the church can diverge from one another without there having to be a spirit of hostility between the distinct purposes of each of these modes of communication.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, February 16, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
Worldview Clashes In Super Bowl Commercials As Riveting As The Actual Game
A variety of assumptions worthy of additional comment were propagated for public dissemination through a number of Super Bowl commercials.
In one anti-bullying spot, a social engineer instructs the one to be mentally reconditioned to run or fight like a girl.
Upon compliance, the unenlightened male is subjected to Pavlovian denunciation (akin to what one would receive in a prisoner of war camp) over how he has insulted his sister.
Rather than an instructive analysis of preconceived notions, the lesson to be learned from the public service announcement is that, irrespective of whether you comply with or ignore orders issued by a women, you are going to be reamed a new one anyway.
For if the ambushed lad had not been told to run like a girl, he would have not likely perpetrated the offending action.
If producers of this broadcast spot are so outraged about thought crimes regarding gender, it would be interesting to hear their perspective regarding the commercial featuring perennial pottymouth Sarah Silverman.
In that one, she says after delivering a baby to the parents, “Sorry, it's a boy.”
Would such blatant denigration of the female gender be permitted in a similar commercial?
Lastly, what about the Scientology advertisement?
In 2011, Fox rejected a Super Bowl commercial that broadcast the message, “John 3:16, what's that mean?” on the grounds that the message contained too much religious doctrine.
Of course, that is unlike the moral-free content of the constant litany of erectile dysfunction commercials where the term “partner” but never “spouse” is constantly verbalized.
It is certainly instructive that programming executives at NBC had no problem, however, with a commercial for Scientology, which is a cult that believes that human beings are reincarnated space aliens and whose sexfiend founder tried to live aboard a cruise ship in order to elude capture for his assorted crimes.
It is easy to assume that the commercials are a momentary distraction allowing the viewer time for a quick trip to the bathroom or to grab another handful of chips.
However, in those brief 30 second spots, there is a contest underway for minds and at times even souls that is as pitched as any struggle on the gridiron
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, February 12, 2015
In the book “Stop Dating The Church”, Josh Harris popularized the analogy that church membership is akin to marriage. As such, when things become difficult, according to Harris, one should not set out in search of greener pastures but instead endure through the misery. So does his resignation as pastor at the scandal-ridden Covenant Life Church constitute a form of abandonment akin to divorce? In most doctrinally conservative churches, the divorced cannot usually remarry without a profound curtailment of their ecclesiastical privileges and opportunities. So by the logic of his own analogy, should Josh Harris be forever denied another ministry position?
On an episode of “Standing Up For The Truth with Mike Lemay”, it was claimed that experiments in Christian communal living in the 1960's and 1970's fizzled out because the participants became materialistic and wanted their own possessions. But is that really sinfully materialistic or merely the way that God has wired human beings to maximize individual well being? The sharing of resources mentioned in Acts 2 is more a description of a specific historic incident. It is not elaborated as categorically imperative doctrine.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
A number of Christians have suggested that, if the state sanctions gay marriage, it might no longer be appropriate for believers to acquire a marriage license. Though the state sanctioning gay marriage undermines the institution, how would that impact the quality of your own relationship if you as a heterosexual acquire a license? You are in no way forbidden from pursuing a partner of the opposite sex. If a state allows unmarried couples to own the same piece of property, does that mean a devout Christian couple should not purchase a house or take out a mortgage?
Regarding Christian Reconstructionists opposed to Fifty Shades Of Gray. Are they so much opposed to a firm hand of discipline or that someone might actually enjoy it? Isn't there more wrong with that film than a blind fold and a pair of handcuffs as one homeschool podcaster seemed to go on and one about?
A number across the political spectrum are outraged that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore would attempt to block the establishment of gay marriage in that state. You know, the law is the law. So in the future, should the inheritor of his judicial mantle step aside as easily as they suggest when Jews are once again onto box cars and octogenarians assert the right to 12 year old child brides? Given the advancement of Islam across the globe, don't kid yourself about the aforementioned scenario being beyond the realm of possibility.
Conspiracy Theorists Ponder Is The Greek Prime Minister Possibly The Anti-Christ
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an order forbidding the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples. The proponents of solemnized deviancy accused Roy Moore of grandstanding. But unlike that of the Ferguson insurgents, at least this jurist's political theatrics don't result in the widespread destruction of property.
Monday, February 09, 2015
The following phrase was used in a podcast posted by a prominent Evangelical seminary: “Held accountable in community.” What that means is that you might not have violated anything concrete from the pages of Scripture. Rather, it means you just violated the nebulous sensibilities of the group. What can they do to you if you don't show up? If no other church will take you because of a sentence imposed by another ecclesiastical assembly, what is to prevent the dispossessed from forming a church of their own? The churches being openly defied can't very well complain about it when nearly the same thing occurred in their own backgrounds and origin accounts.
It was entertaining to see Grand Moff Tarkin on an episode of the Star Wars Rebels animated series. However, it was a bit of a let down when the episode opened with the shuttle dispatched from the battle cruiser with the Imperial March playing (known popularly as "The Darth Vader Theme") without Darth Vader emerging before the assembled stormtroopers.
Radical Homeschooler Invokes Abuse Statistics To Justify Denying Women Education
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Did Chuck Swindol Overreact To Elijah's Declaration Of Despair?
A Facebook theologian has commented in agreement with Christian broadcaster Chuck Swindoll that we should never pray for God to take a loved one home to eternity.
It is contended doing so can apparently derail His sovereignty.
Apparently, if we believe that He is sovereign, we should know that He is fully capable of taking us home when He believes that the time has approached.
Isn't that formulation itself an affront to God's sovereignty?
For if God is sovereign in an absolutist sense and the religious thinker not precise in their statements worthy of considerable condemnation as the ultra-Reformed insist, doesn't God KNOW rather than BELIEVE?
In such a theology as being advocated by this Facebook theologian, prayer is not about bringing our requests and concerns to God but rather about formulating statements that we think will make us appear exceedingly pious before certain audiences.
Just how far are we to take the presupposition embodied by this religious postulation under consideration?
If it is wrong to pray for God to mercifully end a life that is suffering, is it just as wrong to pray that God restore life and vitality to a life that He might prefer to draw to a conclusion in this world?
And given that this criticism was posted by someone that is quite vocal in expressing their support of a predestinarian understanding of soteriology so thoroughgoing as to deny any place for human choice and liberty, it must be asked is it a sin to pray for the salvation of a family member that God would rather see slip into Hellfire and damnation?
As justification for this position, the account of Elijah is referenced.
In I Kings 19, while on the run from Ahab and Jezebel, Elijah succumbs to a moment of despair where he declares to the Lord, in verse 4, “I have had enough, Lord. Take my life. I am no better than my ancestors.”
From the Lord's response, apparently unlike Chuck Swindol, the Lord did not find what Elijah asked that much of an outrage.
Instead of chastising Elijah for his despondency, on two occasions the prophet was given a meal so that he might have strength for the journey that was ahead.
Thus, about the only conclusion that can be drawn from Elijah's lamentation that God end his life is that God does not always answer our prayers the way that we would like.
And if He does not, we might find Him lending us assistance in ways that we did not initially expect.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, February 06, 2015
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Do The Truly Redeemed Retain Health Insurance?
Furthermore, it is pointed out, if you retain traditional insurance, you are sending your money to a large corporation rather than assisting fellow believers.
So long as I get the services I contracted for in a satisfactory manner, what do I care if a corporation is large?
The broadcasters claimed that insurance allows for control over people's lives.
Instead, believers would be better off if oversight over medical affairs were transferred to the church.
But what is to prevent the church from exercising increased control over people's lives or from allocating access to healthcare in a preferential manner?
For example, would ecclesiastical medicine be dispersed to the truly ill or to the missionary couple with the saddest sob story with so many children that you can't help bring to mind the old nursery rhyme about the old woman that lived in the shoe?
During the 1990’s, Christian broadcasters would dedicate entire episodes of their programs shilling for a telecommunications provider with the angle that if you remained with these companies you where as complicit with these companies in the part they played in furthering the agendas of pornography and homosexuality.
Despite such grandiose moralizing, the thing was that this service was a pain in the backside to use when you needed it the most.
Do you really want the same thing to happen to you in terms of securing essential medical services?
by Frederick Meekins
So why not a wear red day for heart disease in ALL PEOPLE irrespective of gender? Men that die from it somehow less dead? Both of my mother’s parents died from heart ailments. I don’t remember going to the cemetery and getting to talk some to grandpa despite him being dead but not grandma. If men were as callous as these women that only care about assorted health concerns unless specifically targeted towards women, you’d never hear the end of it.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Too Spiritual By Half?
The Lutheran seminarian insisted that this symbolically represented the precedence of the spirit over the human tendency to emphasize the body.
The expositor lamented that such a characteristic was the result of the sin nature.
But how is it our fault that the aspect of reality that is the fist to overwhelm our perception on an instinctive level is the physical?
We did not ask to exist as embodied intelligences.
That was part of our original design even in the sinless state.
Unless the demon was cast out first of the person whose body Christ healed and He then had them wait in contemplation for a time before He healed their biological infirmity, isn't this reading too much into the passage?
If one wants to be that attentive to the text, the first miracle in the chapter is actually the bodily healing on the Sabbath of the man with the withered hand.
And what about taking the Four Gospels as a comprehensive totality?
If so, isn't the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast actually thought to be Christ's first miracle?
So do we want to start reading meaning into these as well other than what we are told in the text?
The case could be made that, in terms of a miracle, turning water into wine would appeal more to man's extraneous physical desires than a desire to avoid overwhelming pain and disability.
You make a choice for wine; by design you feel a compulsion to seek the alleviation of pain.
Furthermore, are Lutherans really sure they want to open the door of reading profounder spiritual meaning into the miracles beyond the miracles themselves?
John 2:3 reads, “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.”
Since Christ ultimately relented to her request, why shouldn't we build detailed Christological speculations like one particular denomination does about how Christ's decisions are especially swayed by her contemplative petitions if we are going to read profound truths into something as commonplace as the order in which Christ performed these miracles?
If the definition of God's omniscience is that the Deity knows everything, wouldn't that also include alternative temporal potentialities?
Therefore, isn't it just as valid to conclude that, if Jesus went first to heal Peter's mother-in-law, Christ night not have gotten around to this particular demoniac before this pitied soul's life ended in some convulsive spasm?
Among Bible scholars and theologians, the Gospel of Mark is noted as a summarative action oriented narrative.
Why would there need to be some esoteric reason as to the order in which the events described transpired other than that this was the order in which events “organically” unfolded around Jesus?
By Frederick Meekins